Thursday, October 29, 2015

Analyzing Context

This blog post discusses and analyzes the context of the Froome controversy that project 3 is on, according to questions from Writing Public Lives.

"Context Matters." 10/29/15 via Contextfm.com
1. There are two schools of thought in my debate, the first believes that Froome was doping according to certain data, and the other believes that Froome is clean, and furthermore that the data was private and illegally procured.

2. As I mentioned above, the primary points of contention are the question of Froome's honesty, and whether or not he is doping, as well as the issue of the data that was released regarding his Tour de France performance, whether or not it was legally distributed, and the harsh reaction to it being made public.

3. The points of agreement between parties is the sanctity of cycling, and the continual progress in the sport in sportsmanship and competition.

4. The ideological differences between the parties hinge on the question of whether or not Froome is actually doping, which it is hard to definitively say.

5. As far as the text that I am most familiar with, there is very little call to action for the audience in this controversy. The purpose of the information is mostly to inform the audience, and to raise awareness, as there is little the majority of average interested fans can do.

6. For the issue of doping, Froome and supporters' perspectives will be helpful for my argument, and for the issue of data, the perspective of those vying for freedom of information will be useful. I chose these perspectives because they support the situations that I believe should've played out at the Tour de France.

7. The perspectives that will be a threat are the opposite of those that support. These are the perspectives of those who are convinced completely that Froome was doping, and Sky and Froome's perspective on the data that was released. This may seem backwards, but it will make sense as I get more in depth with my argument.


After reading Grace and Zayla's blog posts, I realized how much people have been improving throughout this class, and how well most of the class is executing their assignments. Both the posts I read seemed similar to mine, reassuring me that I executed the assignment correctly. Another point I realized, is how important understanding the viewpoints opposing my argument will be. Refuting these views with information will strengthen my argument immensely, so I should keep the importance of this idea in mind as I proceed. 

2 comments:

  1. I like how you hyperlinked to multiple sources and were specific about how those sources will help you. I think that this is an interesting topic and you should have no trouble crafting a strong argument for your side of the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would be sure to consider more of the differences between these two groups. Why do some believe Froome was doping and why do some believe he wasn't. Is there more to the argument than just opinions on the evidence? How do people's previous views of Froome affect their opinion in this controversy? Also, remember that even the opposing arguments can be beneficial to your argument as they will give you something to counter in hour paper.

    ReplyDelete